<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (9) TMI 258 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201534</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax under an export service notification could not be denied merely because the exporter did not produce the service provider&#039;s challans, where the notification only required proof of actual tax payment and did not impose that additional evidentiary condition. Customs House Agent services used in relation to export goods were also treated as eligible for refund under the later notification framework. The claim was therefore admissible for the relevant invoices, subject to exclusion of invoices where the service provider&#039;s registration number was unavailable, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of the admissible invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:54:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 258 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201534</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax under an export service notification could not be denied merely because the exporter did not produce the service provider&#039;s challans, where the notification only required proof of actual tax payment and did not impose that additional evidentiary condition. Customs House Agent services used in relation to export goods were also treated as eligible for refund under the later notification framework. The claim was therefore admissible for the relevant invoices, subject to exclusion of invoices where the service provider&#039;s registration number was unavailable, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of the admissible invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>